delete_shape

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It indicates a destructive operation (remove) but does not mention permanence, permissions, rate limits, or return value. Missing key behavioral details.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Second sentence about coordinates and sheet payloads is irrelevant to the delete action, adding unnecessary length and potential confusion. The core sentence is concise but the extra detail dilutes focus.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter deletion tool, the description covers the basic action and ID source. However, it omits return value, error scenarios, and any side effects, leaving gaps in completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions. The description adds context that shape_id is 'returned when it was committed', which helps understand the source of the ID. Still lacks format or constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states 'Remove a committed shape by the id', specifying verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like export_takeoff or measure_line. The additional coordinate info is tangential but does not cloud the purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives. Implies shape_id must come from a commit operation, but lacks context for alternatives or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.